Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would say Atlanta. There seems to be a rivalry of inside the I-285 beltway locally known as the perimeter, and outside of it (ITP vs. OTP). The people that live in those areas seem to be polar opposites from each other.
I don't know about "worst", but I do know that Inner-Loop Houston has always been pretty heavily at odds with the rest of the city/metro outside loop 610. I think that may have lightened a bit since gentrification efforts began in the 90's, but there's still quite a schism between inner-loop and outer-loop Houston. Much of it is political in nature.
Detroit, Detroit, Detroit, and oh yea... DETROIT!!! It's relationship is getting better though from my generation (the young crowd). The old heads are really the problem for the most part.
Kansas City for sure. Outdated views regarding the "dangerous city" and the suburbs don't want to cooperate with anything perceived to benefit the city such as light rail. KC is JUST NOW getting a street car system. Also have suburbs on the KS side actively trying to poach jobs from the city and move them to the suburbs via tax breaks/subsidies. It's a mess. KC has the potential to be light years ahead of where it's at but all the infighting holds it back. No collective responsibility on a metropolitan level.
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,750 posts, read 23,828,256 times
Reputation: 14665
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shakeesha
Tacoma is not a suburb.
Yeah true its not, Tacoma is a blue collar city 35 miles away and its urban settlement is as old as Seattle's. I think Bellevue and Seattle butt heads more often.
The only cities that probably have a good relationship with their suburbs are probably the wealthy cities like NYC that have residents that live and work in the city and also have a second home in the suburbs. I could see Chicago and Los Angeles possibly having that type of relationship as well.
All the other cities probably have sour relationships with their suburbs.
The only cities that probably have a good relationship with their suburbs are probably the wealthy cities like NYC that have residents that live and work in the city and also have a second home in the suburbs. I could see Chicago and Los Angeles possibly having that type of relationship as well.
All the other cities probably have sour relationships with their suburbs.
Think you may be right, since there is a pretty high number of rather wealthy people living in the heart of downtown.
The only cities that probably have a good relationship with their suburbs are probably the wealthy cities like NYC that have residents that live and work in the city and also have a second home in the suburbs. I could see Chicago and Los Angeles possibly having that type of relationship as well.
All the other cities probably have sour relationships with their suburbs.
I agree about NYC. However, in L.A. it's a little more complicated. When I lived there, some of the older, closer-in suburbs (Pasadena, Alhambra, Montebello, Glendale, the South Bay, the SFV) were looked at favorably by Angelenos and had a good relationship with the city, but the further-out exurbs like those in Orange County and the Inland Empire were pretty much despised. And the feeling coming from those exurbs was generally mutual. Especially Orange County.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.